Tag Archives: Sile Lane

The imperfections of science advice noted amidst rumblings in Europe

Leave a reply

The current science advice rumblings in Europe seem to have been launched on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 with an open letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission, from representatives of nine nongovernmental agencies (NGOs).

From the July 22, 2014 letter on the Corporate Europe Observatory website,

We are writing to you to express our concerns regarding the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission. This post was created by Commission President Barroso at the suggestion of the United Kingdom, and was held by Ms Anne Glover since January 2012. The mandate of the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) is “to provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation as requested by the President”.1

We are aware that business lobbies urge you to continue with the practice established by Mr Barroso and even to strengthen the chief adviser’s formal role in policy making.2 We, by contrast, appeal to you to scrap this position. The post of Chief Scientific Adviser is fundamentally problematic as it concentrates too much influence in one person, and undermines in-depth scientific research and assessments carried out by or for the Commission directorates in the course of policy elaboration.

Interestingly, they offer only one specific instance of Glover’s  advice with which they disagree: genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Note: Links have been removed,

To the media, the current CSA presented one-sided, partial opinions in the debate on the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture, repeatedly claiming that there was a scientific consensus about their safety3 whereas this claim is contradicted by an international statement of scientists (currently 297 signatories) saying that it “misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue.”4

Unfortunately, that argument renders the letter into an expression of political pique especially since  the signatories are described as anti-GMO both in Roger Pielke’s July 24, 2014 opinion piece for the Guardian newspaper and in Sile Lane’s July 25, 2014 opinion piece for the New Scientist journal. As Pielke notes, the reference to GMOs overshadows some reasonable concerns expressed in their letter (from Pielke’s opinion piece; Note: Links have been removed),

While it is easy to ridicule the recommendation to abolish the science adviser, there is some merit in the complaints levied by the disaffected NGOs. They express concern that the CSA has been “unaccountable, intransparent and controversial”, singling out public statements by Anne Glover on genetically modified organisms. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps surprisingly, these groups find an ally in these complaints in none other than Glover herself who recently complained about the politicization of science advice within the European Union: “What happens at the moment – whether it’s in commission, parliament or council – is that time and time again, if people don’t like what’s being proposed, what they say is that there is something wrong with the evidence.” [emphasis mine]

Pielke’s piece draws parallels between the US situation (in particular but not confined to Richard Nixon’s policies in the 1970s) and Europe’s current situation. It is well worth reading as is Lane’s piece (Sile Lane is Director of Campaigns for Sense about Science; scroll down about 25% of the way), which amongst other arguments, provides a counter-argument to the criticism of Glover’s advice on GMOs,

… No matter that Glover has faithfully and accurately represented the strong scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs – that, in the words of a commission report, are “no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies”.

This is a position supported by every major scientific institution in the world, and all the scientific academies of countries and regions, but denied by the anti-GMO lobby, which promotes its own alternative “consensus” of a small ragtag group of academics out on the fringes of the mainstream.

There are a number of letters from various organizations countering the July 22, 2014 salvo/letter including this from Sense about Science,

Many other organisations are sending their own letters including nine European medical research organisations and the European Plant Science Organisation representing 227 public research institutions across Europe.

Dear Mr Juncker

We write to you with some urgency in response to a letter you will have just received from nine NGOs urging you to abolish the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission. The letter, which includes Greenpeace as a signatory as well as other prominent NGO voices, alleges that the “post of Chief Scientific Adviser is fundamentally problematic” and asks you to “scrap this position”1.

As organisations and individuals who share a commitment to improving the evidence available to policy makers, we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to any attempt to undermine the integrity and independence of scientific advice received at the highest level of the European Commission. …

You can add your name to the letter by going here.

There is a July 28, 2014 posting on the Science Advice to Governments; a global conference website which provides a listing of the various opinion pieces, letters, and other responses. (Note: This global science advice conference being held in Auckland, New Zealand, Aug. 28 – 29, 2014 was first mentioned here in an April 8, 2014 posting which lists the then confirmed speakers and notes a few other tidbits.)

In the end, it seems that everyone can agree as per the comments in the July 22, 2014 letter from the nine NGOs that science advice needs to be transparent and accountable. As for controversy, that will remain a problem as long as human beings live on the earth.

Two jobs (paid internships) at Sense about Science

Leave a reply

I got this notice today (Feb.  12, 2014) and given the organization’s time frame (deadline: Feb. 20, 2014) for these competitions, I advise haste, From the Sense about 2014 announcement,

We want to recruit two people to join us for one year, a person to support campaigns work and a project support officer. If you know any people who would be interested, would you forward them this note?

Campaigns support:
Our main campaigns are AllTrials and Ask for Evidence. Since the Defamation Act 2013, we also continue to collaborate on extending libel reform to other jurisdictions. The campaigns team coordinates Sense About Science’s daily responsive work. This supporting role will include experience across all the work of the campaigns team but will be predominantly supporting the AllTrials campaign. It includes developing the campaign websites; monitoring social media, publicity and policy issues related to the campaigns; and organising meetings, supporter communications and policy activities. Responsive work will include being the first line of response to phone and email enquiries, initiating responses to new issues and linking our body of work to new discussions.

Project support:
The project team works with researchers and the public to address recurring themes, improve the communication of evidence and draw out underlying assumptions on difficult issues. This role will support the projects team and will involve research, writing, coordinating meetings with many different kinds of people, and dissemination. Upcoming projects include allergies, nuclear energy and forensic genetics. We also coordinate Sense About Science events and help other organisations, such as running workshops to develop ways to help people make sense of evidence. Our events programme includes the Peer Review Matters and Voice of Young Science (VoYS) media workshops, our annual lecture and reception.

At Sense About Science, no two days are the same and the post holders are likely to be involved in plenty of other activities going on in the busy office: representing Sense About Science at meetings, giving talks and writing blogs and articles. These two opportunities are ideal for graduates with a research PhD but would suit very different personalities and interests. The posts were initially conceived as paid internships, reflecting the funds available (£15k pa for each). However, the opportunities for extensive experience, taking a lead and responsibility (something we encourage at all levels) will leave the post holders well equipped for an entry into a good level post in related areas. We will also be reviewing the possibility of longer term posts as our organisation develops over 2014. They are therefore being offered as a fixed term employment. We can be a little bit flexible with hours, if the person is finishing writing up their thesis for example. There will be an interview late February, with a start date ideally in March. We want the people who join us to know about our work already so prior involvement in our activities is a bonus and familiarity with our website and campaigns is essential.

Please send a CV and cover letter to Síle Lane for the campaigns role slane@senseaboutscience.org or Emily Jesper for the project support role ejesper@senseaboutscience.org by 9am Thursday 20th February or give Síle or Emily a call at 020 7490 9590 [someone calling from outside the UK may want to check if adjustments are needed for that telephone number].

I could not find these job postings on the Sense about Science website but if you’re not familiar with the organization and wish to apply, you may want to check the site. I’m guessing that applicants need to be based in the UK but you may want to ask about that as the organization does have a presence in the US according to the website’s International webpage.

UK science blog prize

Leave a reply

You must be based in the UK and writing a science blog to be eligible  for the first UK Science Blog prize. Kahlil A. Casimally’s Oct. 11, 2012 posting on the Scientific American blogs (specifically the SA incubator) mentions (Note: I have removed links),

The Good Thinking Society, chaired by science writer, Simon Singh, recently announced the inaugural UK Science Blog Prize. The prize sets out to recognise the majesty’s nation’s best science blog of the year. Yes, this means that the winner will probably be able to include a “2012’s best science blog in the UK” logo in his or her blog’s sidebar. Wonderful.

Here’s more about the contest from the Good Thinking’s UK Science Blog Prize 2012 webpage,

Although there are already several prizes established in the UK for science books, general science writing and even skeptical blogging, there appears to be no dedicated recognition for science bloggers.

We’d like this to change, as we feel that some of the best science writing currently being produced is being written by science bloggers.

…

First prize is £1,000. There will be at least three runners up prizes of £100 each.

You are asked to self-nominate an entry which must have been published in 2012 by the deadline of Oct. 15, 2012 (today!). The organizers have declared all kinds of science blogging is eligible (from the blog prize webpage),

Other than that, we’re open to all science blogs and that means science in its broadest sense (i.e. pure science, applied science, engineering, mathematics, technology, statistics, health).  [emphasis mine] We also encourage bloggers from all backgrounds to apply, ranging from teenagers to learned professors. We wish to keep the criteria as open as possible. It’s likely the runners up prizes will go to specific category winners, such as best student blog or best pure science blog.

I’m not sure I’d call this science in its broadest sense since they have left out the social sciences. Minor quibble aside, the judges are an interesting lot (from the blog prize webpage),

In addition to Simon Singh at Good Thinking, the following will also be on the judging panel:

Ben Goldacre is a doctor and writer, who’s work focuses on unpicking the real evidence behind scientific claims from quacks, journalists, drug companies, and government reports.

Mark Henderson is a former Science Editor at The Times and author of The Geek Manifesto, detailing the relationship between science and politics. He is Head of Communications at the Wellcome Trust and doesn’t blog as often as he should.

Roger Highfield was the Science Editor of The Daily Telegraph for two decades and the Editor of New Scientist between 2008 and 2011. Today, he is the Director of External Affairs at the Science Museum Group.

Síle Lane is Director of Campaigns at Sense About Science and is a former stem cell researcher.

Martin Robbins is science writer, podcaster and journalist who blogs for The Guardian about science, pseudoscience and the role of science in politics.

Sid Rodrigues is the organiser of the world’s first Skeptics in the Pub, based in London and has served as consultant/organiser for science outreach events for over 5 years. He previously spent ten years as a scientist in applied genetics, analytical chemistry and forensics. He currently works at London’s home of free thought, Conway Hall.

Connie St Louis is Director of City’s Science Journalism MA, is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. She presents and produces a range programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service.

I hope to hear more about this contest when the winners are announced.

Thanks to @BoraZ’s tweet for alerting me to this science blogging initiative.

Scientific spat and libel case in UK has Canadian connection

17 Replies

Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics located in Waterloo, Canada, has been described as being insufficiently qualified to assess a fellow scientist’s work. Alok Jha, science correspondent for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, writes about the situation which includes a libel suit against Nature magazine in his Nov. 18, 2011 article,

A scientist who is suing one of the world’s most prominent scientific journals for libel compared himself to Albert Einstein in the high court on Friday [Nov. 18, 2011] as part of his evidence against the journal. Professor Mohamed El Naschie, also claimed that an eminent physicist brought in by the journal as an expert witness to analyse the value of his work was not sufficiently qualified to do so.

El Naschie is suing Nature as a result of a news article published in 2008, after the scientist’s retirement as editor-in-chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. The article alleged that El Naschie had self-published several research papers, some of which did not seem to have been peer reviewed to an expected standard and also said that El Naschie claimed affiliations and honorary professorships with international institutions that could not be confirmed by Nature. El Naschie claims the allegations in the article were false and had damaged his reputation.

On Friday, Nature called Professor Neil Turok, a cosmologist and director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, as an expert witness to assess some of the work published by El Naschie.

…

In his evidence, Turok said he found it difficult to understand the logic in some of El Naschie’s papers. The clear presentation of scientific ideas was an important step in getting an idea accepted, he said. “There are two questions – one is whether the work is clearly presented and readers would be able to understand it. It would be difficult for a trained theoretical physicist to understand [some of El Naschie’s papers]. …  The second question is about the correctness of the theory and that will be decided by whether it agrees with experiments. Most theories in theoretical physics are speculative – we form a logical set of rules and deductions and we try, ultimately, to test the deductions in experiments.

There’s more at stake here than whether or not Turok is qualified or El Naschie’s work is up to the standards in his field, this is also about libel and libel laws in England. There have been some intended consequences from the current set of laws. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia essay,

Libel tourism is a term first coined by Geoffrey Robertson to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements. According to the English publishing house Sweet & Maxwell, the number of libel cases brought by people alleged to be involved with terrorism almost tripled in England between 2006 and 2007.

Jha goes on to finish his first article on El Naschie’s libel case with this,

Sile Lane, a spokesperson for the Libel Reform campaign said: “Scientists expect publications like Nature to investigate and write about controversies within the scientific community. The threat of libel action is preventing scientific journals from discussing what is good and bad science. This case is another example of why we need libel law that has a clear strong public interest defence and a high threshold for bringing a case. The government has promised to reform the libel laws and this can’t come soon enough.”

I last wrote about the libel situation in the UK in my Nov. 12, 2010 posting, International call to action on libel laws in the UK.